VIDEO: Bob Satterfield beats Nino Valdes

What makes them "as good" as Valdes? Neither one ever reached the heights he did in his career, and neither one ever showed they were good enough to beat a HOFer and/or ex-champ.

The film evidence shows him looking uncharacteristically flat-footed against Harold Johnson and getting outboxed by a LHW, a division that he once ruled in his peak in the late '40s.

What great fighter(s) did Charles beat in '53 or later to certify that he was still great?

His rematch with Lloyd Marshall, for starters.

Even against Bernie Reynolds a year earlier, I'd still say he looked quicker and sharper than he did in '53.
[yt]I4WXv0A6uDw[/yt]
[yt]z2PutDflPYo[/yt]

The Marshall rematch is on film and that was before '47

How were they "friendly" when most of those fights featured KOs and/or knockdowns?

It's not "odd" if he's clearly past his peak and slowing down then, as film evidence shows him doing. On top of which, claiming Valdes is inferior to certain fighters on the basis of having lost to them undermines your whole point that fight results are sometimes "odd" and don't prove anything. You can't have it both ways.

 

Not necessarily, because that could just as well mean A ruined B, or that B simply started declining afterward for whatever reason. Using that logic, Cockell's win over LaStarza should be devalued because he lost his next fight to Norkus after that and generally went downhill afterward.

Again, not necessarily; what if B has notably improved since losing to A? If that's your argument, then Valdes' win over Jackson should be viewed as even more impressive since Jackson went on to be a top 3 contender over the next couple years afterward. Likewise, Jackson's win over Layne should look better because Layne actually went on a win streak afterward and worked his way back up the rankings.

Actually he didn't; he fell to the #4 spot afterward, just one spot above where Valdes had fallen.

I wouldn't say so, given that Satterfield was unrated at the time Valdes lost to him.

 

But you could put the same sort of spins on any contender being discussed in this thread to say they are "overrated." For example, LaStarza dropped an upset decision to Bucceroni who Jackson stopped easily, and also another to Rocky Jones before beating either of them, and got his title shot with a tough, grueling decision win over Layne who Jackson and Walls KO'd easily. The same year Cockell beat him he also lost to Norkus. Likewise, you could point out that Cockell was embarrassingly KO'd by Slade (who Jackson lasted the distance with three times and managed to beat once) and Turpin, and got his high HW ranking with tough wins over Marciano leftovers who never did anything substantial afterward.

 

Only if you think Valdes beating Charles says he's better than him.

No it doesn't; nothing in the amateurs "qualifies" in the pros.

Yes he was; he moved his legs and boxed a lot more against Valentino, whereas against those other guys he was much more flatfooted.

Gilliam wasn't.

Sure can - Valdes beat Charles, Neuhaus, and Jackson in the span of about 9 months, for example.

Charles used to beat 2-3 times that many rated fighters in 12-month spans back in his prime.

No, but he was a somebody who was notably succeptible to being KO'd.

It's not "splitting hairs," it's the whole crux of the issue here. Charles' all-around movements visibly slowed between those two years, which means he's not "the same guy" in those two years.

At his peak he was more than just "formidable." He was one of the very greatest fighters of all time.

Yet when he was at his peak, that's pretty much what he did.

 

But when Valdes, Satterfield, and others tried to crowd him post-'52, he couldn't side step them anymore. He was mugged around at close quarters and forced to go toe-to-toe.

He didn't time them the same way; Wallace and Harrison were boxers who didn't look to crowd him and gave him room to unload.

His chin and heart took him to the wire against Marciano more than anything - and he only had the latter when they fought the second time.

He had THIRTEEN fights against rated contenders between November '41 and March '43, winning nine of them. He could fight more than 10 rated opponents in a year because he fought contenders from more than one weight class (plus rankings change month to month anyway).

No, a popular crowd pleasing contender still talked of today. He fell short of genuine greatness in his career, by lacking both a reliable chin and consistency.

He whupped Barone and Maxim; what was wrong with those performances?

 

He went toe-to-toe because his legs and reflexes weren't working as well as they used to and left him with no other choice.

No it wasn't. His legs weren't as fast, his punches weren't as quick or sharp, and his jab wasn't as quick or authoritative.

He had 7 fights against rated opponents (out of 13 fights altogether) from February '47 through January '48.

That still doesn't make him a great fighter.

He was rated as a LHW, just as Harrison was.

Most others wrote otherwise:

Charles "battered the rugged, rock-ribbed, steel-jawed Barone into submission in 2 minutes 6 seconds of the eleventh round, ending a battle which, for savage fury, will take its place among the toughest Charles has encountered."
-James P. Dawson

"The crowd almost tore down the Cincinnati Garden Arena as the king of the heavies handed Barone his first knockdown and knockout in 53 fights."
-Associated Press

The fight is on film and shows it being anything but a bore. Charles took it to him and beat the **** out of him the whole fight.

The ones that actually did describe the events of the fight agree that it was a savage slaughter by Charles.

"The dark-skinned Cincinnati gladiator battered Joey Maxim, world light-heavyweight champion, through fifteen rounds of one-sided, though bitter, fighting...

Taking command at the outset, Charles pummeled Maxim almost uninterruptedly with a withering fire that would have claimed as a victim early a less hardy and courageous fighter."
-James P. Dawson